(18-05-2015 06:28 PM)objectivetheist Wrote: What you have presented is not a fact but a hypothesis. Speculation of a theiretical scientific model. What I am looking for is facts not possibilities.

I asked you to shiw how mutation can be responsible for whole creatures? Evolution is inadequate to show such a thing. The scope of mutation has not been demonstrated as being all encompassing of all organisms. It is limited and your youtube videos do not show otherwise.

This is apart from the serious problem of the Cambrian Explosion.

Asking that question demonstrates your utter ignorance of Biology and Genetics. There is no serious problem in the Cambrian, and YOU HAVE NOT SAID ONE DAMN SPECIFIC THING about what that is. (I presented the answer above anyway). All you can do is generalize about your personal incredulity. That is no argument for anything. You are an ignorant fool who can say NOTHING SPECIFIC about even ONE thing. Specific arguments about SPECIFIC chemical reactions and genetics, or STFU.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(18-05-2015 06:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So there were two claims made that are completely false.

1. Organisms arose fully formed in the Cambraian Explosion. (This a typical horseshit claim by creationists).

Whatever answer there may be about the origins of phenomena wee see, the gods and the miraculous are he very least probable. They are at the END of he line of ALL possible explanations. So people who attempt to claim that look at probability in complex designs demonstrates the gods, are intellectually dishonest and by the VERY SAME standard, the miraculous is the VERY LEAST probable explanation. They are totally inconsistent.

Objective theist failed to name even one organism that he thinks had no predecessor in the Cambrian Explosion, therefore until he provides a (LONG) list, technically no reply to his unsupported claim is necessary. However its easy to destroy that bullshit. Of course he's just parroting nonsense he read on creationist sites.

He can refute NOT ONE specific point in any of these videos.

Ok. To be fair and honest I will listen yo your videos first and read upon it then get back to you. If you want to continue posting links thats fine. I will check everything then reply in a few days time or whenever.

"Evolution is all about processes that almost never happen. Every birth in every lineage is a potential speciation event, but speciation almost never happens, not once in a million births. Mutation in DNA almost never happens—not once in a trillion copyings—but evolution depends on it. Take the set of infrequent accidents— things that almost never happen—and sort them into the happy ac- cidents, the neutral accidents, and the fatal accidents; amplify the effects of the happy accidents—which happens automatically when you have replication and competition—and you get evolution." -Breaking the Spell

Every birth is not a speciation event. Too bad. Speciation is a complex process that takes much longer than one birth. The path to it may be started by one birth. A new species is never started WITH only one birth.

Uhm, he didn't say every birth, he said "every birth in every lineage ", and he didn't say they were all speciation events, he said "potential" speciation events. If you're disagreeing with Dennet here, it would likely put more doubt or your interpretation of evolution, than his.

(18-05-2015 06:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So there were two claims made that are completely false.

1. Organisms arose fully formed in the Cambraian Explosion. (This a typical horseshit claim by creationists).

Whatever answer there may be about the origins of phenomena wee see, the gods and the miraculous are he very least probable. They are at the END of he line of ALL possible explanations. So people who attempt to claim that look at probability in complex designs demonstrates the gods, are intellectually dishonest and by the VERY SAME standard, the miraculous is the VERY LEAST probable explanation. They are totally inconsistent.

Objective theist failed to name even one organism that he thinks had no predecessor in the Cambrian Explosion, therefore until he provides a (LONG) list, technically no reply to his unsupported claim is necessary. However its easy to destroy that bullshit. Of course he's just parroting nonsense he read on creationist sites.

He can refute NOT ONE specific point in any of these videos.

Ok. To be fair and honest I will listen yo your videos first and read upon it then get back to you. If you want to continue posting links thats fine. I will check everything then reply in a few days time or whenever.

I'm not posting from creationist websites but from myself.

Specifics. No more generalizations from personal incredulity. Specifics ONLY.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(18-05-2015 05:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Every birth is not a speciation event. Too bad. Speciation is a complex process that takes much longer than one birth. The path to it may be started by one birth. A new species is never started WITH only one birth.

Uhm, he didn't say every birth, he said "every birth in every lineage ", and he didn't say they were all speciation events, he said "potential" speciation events. If you're disagreeing with Dennet here, it would likely put more doubt or your interpretation of evolution, than his.

Leave it to Tommy-diarrhea-brain to try to muddy the water with his prevaricating crap. What the fuck is the difference between "every birth" and every birth in every lineage" ? Just go away with your inane idiotic questions.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

Why should anyone take your view on evolution as any more accurate that Daniel Dennett's? He seems far more versed on the topic than you, that's for sure. If there's some inconsistency between your views and his, it's more likely that your views are the one's that are wrong.

Why should anyone take your view on evolution as any more accurate that Daniel Dennett's? He seems far more versed on the topic than you, that's for sure. If there's some inconsistency between your views and his, it's more likely that your views are the one's that are wrong.

I don't have any "views" on Evolution, inane-question-asker. I do realize that since you have basically nothing to offer to any discussion, your tactic is to attempt to raise questions about basically nothing, (as you did here0, and then not answer the question, in order to make it seem like you are actually engaged in saying something relevant. Nice try. Go away.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(18-05-2015 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote: Try actually reading my response. There is no evidence of any gods in evolution.

What would evidence for god in evolution look like? Inevitability?

That seems to be what the paleontologist, Simon Conway Morris suggests:

"In The Runes of Evolution, Simon Conway Morris revitalizes the study of evolution from the perspective of convergence, providing us with compelling new evidence to support the mounting scientific view that the history of life is far more predictable than once thought."

No, it would look like an explanation for something that is otherwise inexplicable by the theory. Since there is nothing inherently inexplicable by the theory, there is no need to bring in the unnecessary.

Dieu? Je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.